antique_nova Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Hi all, So I've just ready through pretty much all of the codex and my first impression is... If you thought the Tau codex was bad. Then you haven't seen this codex. It's overpriced as hell, but it looks far more fun than the Tau codex. However, if you want competitive. You won't see a single knight, not a single one in a GT list that is serious and sane about hitting the top 10% or even 20% of places. However, one thing does strike out to me and that is. The Knight Gallant. This guy is special, because most titanic units seem to be capped at 4 attacks (which is stupid, because they're huge. They should be able to stand out entire squads of 30 guardsmen in one turn if they want. Because that's what it means to be truly titanic. Heck, even 100 for the 500 point models is far more accurate. But to tone it down, it should be able to insta kill primarchs. No saves.) Anyway. Gallant. This guy is special, because he has FIVE attacks at WS2! And BS3 standard, but that's nothing special. With his titanic feet, he gets 15 attacks on average at full health. On average, he'll hit 13 times (rounded up) and give you the chance to inflict 13 S8 - AP 2 - DD3 wounds. Give him the household Terryn (which allows him to roll an extra D6 to all charges and advances, then discard the lowest dice). and he's more than certain going to get his charges off. You can even flank with the guy for 3 CPs, where he appears within 6" of any battlefield edge and more than 9" away. Plus, for 3 CPS. He gets to fight twice in a single combat phase! And if you give him the warlord trait "Landstrider" he adds 2" to all advances and charges! Which is nuts! So, instead of 15 attacks. He gets 30 attacks! 26 will hit on average and you'll get the chance to inflict 26x S8 - AP2 - DD3 wounds. That is insane. But. Always a butt. The guy costs 354 pts with the cheapest combo. And if you want him to kill a character, then he will with the stratagem. Hell, he'll even make Primarchs cry with what he can do, because he'll put out 35 damage wounds on average (when he uses the twice strike stratagem). That's enough to wipe out Magnus (not buffed) in one turn and severely cripple Mortarion. Another way to make primarchs cry is to give the guy the relic called. "Paragon Gauntlet". In short, this beast of a relic provides x2 Strength - AP4 - D8. Plus, if a vehicle or monster is slain by this weapon. Then pick an enemy unit within 9" and on a 4+, it suffers D3 mortal wounds. Now imagine. 10 attacks at WS2. 9 Hit and then you wound on 2s (because you're S16 now) and cause 8 wounds. Most primarchs only have ++4 invul. That means, 4 go through, causing 32 wounds. Even if Mortarion uses disgustingly resilient. That's 20 wounds still there. He's dead and then you have the gauntlet's special ability to toss his corps and hurt someone nearby. He moves 12" at full strength and will advance 5" on average with the warlord trait I mentioned. So, he'll definitely get into turn 2 combat, maybe even turn 1. If you are willing to spend 2 CPs for the stratagem 'full tilt' which allows you to charge even after you advance and if you are going for a first turn charge. On average, your warlord's move distance (including advancing and charging) will be 26" (12" for movement. 5" for advance and 9 for charging). However, don't forget that you get to roll an extra D6 for advancing and charging for every house Terryn unit and then discard the lowest dice result. So, it's most likely a few inches more. In a 1750 pt game. You can only field 4 of these guys max, but because of the BETA rules, you can only field 3. Meaning you just spent 1062 pts on 3 bare bone knights. Another weird thing is just how many stratagems and costly ones there are for the knights and yet, the knights themselves get so little in CPs. That being said, I'd get the Battalion detachment, so that you start with at least 9 command points in total (including the lord of war detachment). But how would I play them? Well, I wouldn't even bother with the stratagem that allows you to reserve a titan as it costs too much for what it does, but I'd charge 3 of them up the field asap. Have the warlord lead the charge and by turn 2. If you can charge with all three and use the fight twice stratagem, you'll be able to pump 60 S8 - AP2 - DD3 hits with Titanic feet. 50 of those will hit on average. Not many things are going to survive that. You also have an effective average charge range of 21" at full strength and get to roll an extra D6 for charges and discard the lowest result. So, you can probably expect a 23" average charge. Hmm. I don't think I'm doing a very good job of selling this codex as being really bad, but this was just too fun to ignore. That being said. I don't think investing in 3 knights is worth it, because the armigers really stink. Like. Horribly. Not even father Nurgle would take them in. But after writing the above piece, I may even consider taking just one knight gallant in my lists for that first turn charge 30 attacks shenanigans, because that looks fun! EDIT: But I just realised that points wise. It's worth only 2 Leman Russ executioners and it's price tag is 3 full Leman Russes. No thanks. What do you think? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmic66 Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 I think they'll be same as always, smash certain lists and fold to others. I think the shooty armigers aren't to shabby on paper. Still mandatory to run knights with guard or something to rack up CP's as they seem pretty thirsty. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5101964 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyriks Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 It seems like you've rounded up a lot which changes the outcome a fair bit. Gallant won't average 35 wounds on Magnus with or without buffs, and it's unlikely to reach Magnus before he is buffed (unless your opponent deploys very badly). Once he is buffed it looks like odds are he will survive. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5101968 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffersonian000 Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Wow, way off on Armigers. Both are beasts in their given roles, the only downside is the CP debacle with the Knight Lance Detachment. Warglaive have 2 Attack profiles for their Chain Cleaver. Helverins are Fast Dakka Turrets. SJ Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5101973 Share on other sites More sharing options...
antique_nova Posted June 9, 2018 Author Share Posted June 9, 2018 It seems like you've rounded up a lot which changes the outcome a fair bit. Gallant won't average 35 wounds on Magnus with or without buffs, and it's unlikely to reach Magnus before he is buffed (unless your opponent deploys very badly). Once he is buffed it looks like odds are he will survive. I have and it doesn't and Gallants will average 35 damage wounds on Magnus without buffs. Even with a ++3 invul save, Magnus will barely be alive. If the knight gets to charge. 10 attacks at WS2 equals 8 hits at S16 Which equals 7 wounds. At ++4 invul save. Magnus saves only 4, while 3 go through at 8 damage wounds a piece. Magnus is kill with 6 damage wounds going over. At ++3 invul save. He saves 5 and 2 go through at 8 damage wounds a piece. Leaving him with 2 wounds left. And I never talked about first turn charging Magnus. I'm just saying what will most likely happen when they engage in combat if the Gallant gets his charge off. Which he can, because he can use a cheap bubble screen to stop Magnus charging in. Although, Magnus can do the same. Anyway, I was only using the primarchs as an example in regards to combat only. Not charging etc. However, without any bubble wraps. Magnus is just going to tear through any imperial knight with contemptuous ease. Wow, way off on Armigers. Both are beasts in their given roles, the only downside is the CP debacle with the Knight Lance Detachment. Warglaive have 2 Attack profiles for their Chain Cleaver. Helverins are Fast Dakka Turrets. SJ I'm not way off on the armigers at all. They're terrible and I stand by what I said and including the CP debacle. They will barely reach the enemy lines, before they're shot to bits or shot down so badly that they'll be easily tied up by cheap enemy fodder and finished off. There are so many other units that do much better and most cost efficiently in anti-horde and anti-elites and anti-tank close combat roles compared to them that guard or another Imperium force can ally with. The fact that we must have 3 lords of war minimum in a detachment that doesn't take off CPs is too much against fielding knights in any game less than 2000 points. Helverins can move fast, but it's wasted when they possess 60" weapons. Just place them in the centre of the board and they'll be able to see pretty much anything and everything and be easily in range of anything and everything, rendering their fleeting characteristics worthless. It will shoot 8 times on average and hit 6 times on average. Against elite units that are T6, it's okay, but there are far more cost effective methods on doing do. Once you start going against any vehicles, it's utter useless. There are Leman Russ tanks and heavy weapon's squads that are much better and more efficient for points cost. Give me another spearhead detachment full of devastator units with lascannons or missile launchers or even plasma cannons with dark angels using the +1 Damage stratagem every turn. For hordes, there are much better options such as leman russ punishers, wyverns etc. So, I stand by my initial observations. Imperial Knights are not competitive. Barely even making the table in competitive games. They also possess one of the worst codexes in the game, second only to the Tau (no surprise there). I heard that they were ridiculously strong in 6th and 7th edition, but I never played those editions. But one thing is for certain in my eyes. Whatever role they play, whether specialising or combining, they do not rank in the top 5 overall whether for the Imperium or in the game. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5101987 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysere Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Helverin costs about the same as a predator with twice as much dakka. The Warglaive is an odd one as it's not that great in concept but if you outflank a unit of them then they could work well. Agree you probably won't see them on top tables. I don't have nearly enough time spent messing with the codex to say anything for sure but my gut feeling is you're likely to see one knight with maybe two armigers in top tier lists running a household of choice and the best relic and warlord trait you could have for it. I say two armigers because you need the SHD to get the household trait. Anything more than that probably won't make it that far. Otherwise a lone knight taken entirely for the strat and relic of a house that does the most for it. Like a house raven castellan for maximum reliability with the strat. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5101992 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kisada Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 You don't see the value in a mobile gun platform that can move 14" and still shoot without penalty? yes the 60" range allows you to hit everything but do you play on Planet Bowlingball? Are there no line of sight blocking terrain on the board? What about moving to avoid being charged and tied up so that you can continue to lay down the autocannon hate? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5101997 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pendent Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Look man, I'm sorry but if you can't see some incredible potential in this codex I don't know what to tell you. I doubt we'll see pure Knight armies winning tournaments anytime soon but I can guarantee you'll see them splashed in. And, uh, I'm not sure if you've noticed but this is hardly the only army that gains a lot from a mixed force.Look at the Castellan for instance. With just warlard traits and relic it can put out some of the best shooting available to an imperial army while at the same time having 28 T8 wounds and a 4+ save from the warlord trait, boosted to a 3++ with a strategem. Cawl's Wrath has a frankly disgusting amount of firewpower, the Volcano cannon has a reasonable chance of popping a tank every turn and the secondary autocannons and missiles put out a really solid amount of shooting as well, some of which can be used to kill key characters if necessary. For 600 points I can get all the fire support I'll ever need for my Blood Angels who in turn can focus on what they're good at. For a trivial cost I can even add a pair of Helverins for even more firewpower and some additional durability for my Taranis Castellan from the household trait. Those Helverins are quite probably brokenly good for how cheap they are compared to something like a Predator. That Helverin can shoot and move, has more firepower and basically the same durability for fewer points. Clearly this is underpowered. Somehow. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102001 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kisada Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Pendent ... I'd argue the Helverin is more durable because of the 5++ to shooting and the mobility that allows it to stay out of harms way. With my predator it was always a toss up on either moving or shooting effectively ... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102004 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pendent Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Silly me, they're so good in every other way I forgot the incredibly useful invuln save. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102005 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 In fairness, I have to agree with the above re: Helverins. Look around the net if you're not seeing it from the codex numbers. You'll find reviews and analysis from some of the biggest names in the 40K competitive scene who are literally drooling over the Helverin's potential. Also, with respect, why does a unit with a 40" range weapon, which is also as fast as that thing is, have to worry about 'reaching the opponents lines'? Take a second look, seriously. I suspect you missed something in at least the case of that unit. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102046 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamtro Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Wow, way off on Armigers. Both are beasts in their given roles, the only downside is the CP debacle with the Knight Lance Detachment. Warglaive have 2 Attack profiles for their Chain Cleaver. Helverins are Fast Dakka Turrets. SJ Wait does that mean my 3 Cerastus Knights in a Lance won't gain any command points? That will mightily suck. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102061 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Wow, way off on Armigers. Both are beasts in their given roles, the only downside is the CP debacle with the Knight Lance Detachment. Warglaive have 2 Attack profiles for their Chain Cleaver. Helverins are Fast Dakka Turrets. SJ Wait does that mean my 3 Cerastus Knights in a Lance won't gain any command points? That will mightily suck. RAW, yes it does. But it's already been stated by GW that this is an oversight, unintended, and will be swiftly FAQ'd. So you'd have to be facing a very anal opponent to not just be allowed to get on with things in the meanwhile :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102062 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 I posted this in another board, but it's just so funny, I had to put it here for you guys too: So, I read the Codex this morning. In it, there is an example list - with pictures - showing two Terryn Lances. One Lance contains 2x Questorus Knights and a Dominus, the other contains a Questorus and 2x Armigers... ...They actually state, in black and white: 'This army fulfils the requirements of two Super-heavy Detachments. As it is also Battle-forged, its player receives nine Command Points to spend on Stratagems!' Yep. Even the Codex writer(s) didn't understand the 'no CP for Armigers rule' and contradicted it in the codex! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102064 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Reinhard Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 I posted this in another board, but it's just so funny, I had to put it here for you guys too: So, I read the Codex this morning. In it, there is an example list - with pictures - showing two Terryn Lances. One Lance contains 2x Questorus Knights and a Dominus, the other contains a Questorus and 2x Armigers... ...They actually state, in black and white: 'This army fulfils the requirements of two Super-heavy Detachments. As it is also Battle-forged, its player receives nine Command Points to spend on Stratagems!' Yep. Even the Codex writer(s) didn't understand the 'no CP for Armigers rule' and contradicted it in the codex! This tells me there's been a last minute change, or that the wrong wording was used. Hasn't there been numerous cases now where they've stated that "oh and here we get 9 cp" . It seems just that the RAW text of the Lance is the odd man out. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102080 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 I posted this in another board, but it's just so funny, I had to put it here for you guys too: So, I read the Codex this morning. In it, there is an example list - with pictures - showing two Terryn Lances. One Lance contains 2x Questorus Knights and a Dominus, the other contains a Questorus and 2x Armigers... ...They actually state, in black and white: 'This army fulfils the requirements of two Super-heavy Detachments. As it is also Battle-forged, its player receives nine Command Points to spend on Stratagems!' Yep. Even the Codex writer(s) didn't understand the 'no CP for Armigers rule' and contradicted it in the codex! This tells me there's been a last minute change, or that the wrong wording was used. Hasn't there been numerous cases now where they've stated that "oh and here we get 9 cp" . It seems just that the RAW text of the Lance is the odd man out. It does kinda look that way, yep. Brilliant piece of proof reading by GW in either case :P Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102082 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kisada Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Do you think the lance restriction was to prevent other armies from taking 3 armigers in a Super heavy detachment and receiving 3 CP and allowing the armigers to have house rules? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102098 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Do you think the lance restriction was to prevent other armies from taking 3 armigers in a Super heavy detachment and receiving 3 CP and allowing the armigers to have house rules? I'm going to be careful how I word this, because I want to state my opinion, without sounding like my intent is to bad mouth another person: Honestly? I think the restriction was simply due to a lack of foresight, and possibly a general lack of enthusiasm for IK's, on the part of the codex writer, Robin Cruddace. I think he was either somewhat naive, lacked understanding of IK's as a stand-alone army, or he had a bias of some kind that influenced his work. It's a cynical point of view, but he's well known as a Guard player and fan, and lets face it, it shows in their book. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102101 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImperialSquishiness Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Hopefully they'll FAQ it so that Armigers net us CP Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102116 Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhorneHunter57x Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Do you think the lance restriction was to prevent other armies from taking 3 armigers in a Super heavy detachment and receiving 3 CP and allowing the armigers to have house rules? I'm going to be careful how I word this, because I want to state my opinion, without sounding like my intent is to bad mouth another person: Honestly? I think the restriction was simply due to a lack of foresight, and possibly a general lack of enthusiasm for IK's, on the part of the codex writer, Robin Cruddace. I think he was either somewhat naive, lacked understanding of IK's as a stand-alone army, or he had a bias of some kind that influenced his work. It's a cynical point of view, but he's well known as a Guard player and fan, and lets face it, it shows in their book. I believe the restriction is "rules-follow-fluff" taken a bit too far in one direction without compensating. It is mentioned that Armiger pilots don't usually have a ton of free will, instead being guided mentally by their superior. With that in mind, it makes sense from a fluff perspective that they wouldn't generate CPs by themselves, but it's a bit harsh from a gameplay perspective. A lot of the new rules in the Codex feel very fluff-based, and I don't think this is any different. I posted this in another board, but it's just so funny, I had to put it here for you guys too: So, I read the Codex this morning. In it, there is an example list - with pictures - showing two Terryn Lances. One Lance contains 2x Questorus Knights and a Dominus, the other contains a Questorus and 2x Armigers... ...They actually state, in black and white: 'This army fulfils the requirements of two Super-heavy Detachments. As it is also Battle-forged, its player receives nine Command Points to spend on Stratagems!' Yep. Even the Codex writer(s) didn't understand the 'no CP for Armigers rule' and contradicted it in the codex! Yeah, and I also noticed that the 'small' example army (pg. 87) says that the pictured Raven detachment (Valiant, Warden, Warglaive) "...goes to battle with an impressive six Command Points..." Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102121 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clingy Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 To the OP. Try the Admech codex (Deleted my full comment as I read it back and I sounded well whiny) Haha Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102142 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felstone Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 My first thought was - :cuss i won't be able to competitively field my armiger helverines, and i need to order 2 more big knights. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102147 Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquamarine Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Surely they will FAQ this for Armigers, as well as for FW Knights? Otherwise, Knight armies will only EVER have 6 CPs at regular play levels as you simply can't fit 6 Questoris Knights into a 2000 points army to grab the 2 necessary detachments. I thought this was half the point of Armigers. You can still get around other players abusing this for CPs by stating that every unit in your army has to have the Questoris keyword... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102193 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffersonian000 Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Antique_Nova appears to play with no terrain at all, so sad. Must make everything without a 2++ save suck in your opinion. SJ Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102200 Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquamarine Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Wow, way off on Armigers. Both are beasts in their given roles, the only downside is the CP debacle with the Knight Lance Detachment. Warglaive have 2 Attack profiles for their Chain Cleaver. Helverins are Fast Dakka Turrets. SJ Wait does that mean my 3 Cerastus Knights in a Lance won't gain any command points? That will mightily suck. RAW, yes it does. But it's already been stated by GW that this is an oversight, unintended, and will be swiftly FAQ'd. So you'd have to be facing a very anal opponent to not just be allowed to get on with things in the meanwhile Did you have a source on that please, Stray? I've been searching for this statement by GW and can't find it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348024-first-thoughts-on-codex-imperial-knights/#findComment-5102208 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.